• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Did Jesus really exist?

Raptor Witness said:
[qimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2291/2144250558_c1439618f9_o.jpg[/qimg]

[Link]​
Click to expand...

ferguson.JPG
 
paint3d said:
I once thought that the Gospels must have been based on a real person or group of persons, but I don't believe that any more. You can get the whole story on www(dot)jesusneverexisted(dot)com.
Click to expand...

On the, ahem, OTHER THREAD (hint, hint), I pointed out why jesusneverexisted.com isn't so trustworthy.

ambnp said:
Why do you think it's a work of fiction? Here is another site for open minded reason seeking individuals. www.jesusmystries.demon.co.uk[/QUOT...skepticwiki.org/index.php/The_Jesus_Mysteries
Click to expand...
 
ImaginalDisc said:
That's nonsensical. If they felt that way, they couldn't be called "Christians" for one thing. For another, if any of the events of Mark are to be taken seriously, following Jesus around while he fed people, healed the sick, raised the dead, was conspired against by the temple leaders, tried by the governor, died, was reborn and flew off into Heaven would have been the most important events in their lives.

What, Peter cheerfully went back to fishing? No one mentions him thirty years but then, suddenly, he's God?
Click to expand...

I wonder why there are no "Was Buddha real" threads, seems that no one got around to writing down his utterance (Tha Pali Cannon) for over 300 years after his death.

Then again, I guess no one has ever heard of oral traditions either
 
tsg said:
Experience. Really, what separates "oral tradition" from "friend of a friend" stories?
Click to expand...

Okay well a good example of what I mean are the Trojan wars - It is geneally agreed the Homeric epics began as an oral tradition of perhaps as much as four hundred years.

Now of course there is very good chance that emblishment occured and the story's point changed somewhat. However what didn't change was the core fact. Greece and Troy fought a war - Greece eventually won. Until the discovery of Troy, the whole story was always considered a myth.

I use the same arguement with Jesus, Buddha even Moses. The existence of the stories in the first place point to a high probability these people existed. Their deeds, actions and fate can be argued, because they are all elements that can be emblished or changed to suit the mood of the re-teller.

Where these people big bold and as imposing as the tradition might suggest. I think that is the subject of another thread altogether
 
MG1962 said:
Okay well a good example of what I mean are the Trojan wars - It is geneally agreed the Homeric epics began as an oral tradition of perhaps as much as four hundred years.

Now of course there is very good chance that emblishment occured and the story's point changed somewhat. However what didn't change was the core fact. Greece and Troy fought a war - Greece eventually won. Until the discovery of Troy, the whole story was always considered a myth.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that oral histories are necessarily inaccurate, only that they aren't necessarily reliable on their own. Even in your example, there was eventually physical evidence to confirm them.

I use the same arguement with Jesus, Buddha even Moses. The existence of the stories in the first place point to a high probability these people existed. Their deeds, actions and fate can be argued, because they are all elements that can be emblished or changed to suit the mood of the re-teller.
Click to expand...

If, though, you add in the possibility that the people who eventually recorded these oral histories may have had an agenda that was served by embellishing the facts, the oral histories they represent become that much more unlikely to be accurate.

Where these people big bold and as imposing as the tradition might suggest. I think that is the subject of another thread altogether
Click to expand...

And I think that is precisely where the whole "did Jesus exist" argument falls. How much of it has to be false before the person in question ceases to qualify as "Jesus" in any manner that is significant to the Jesus of the New Testament? And that's assuming it even is a single person and not a composite of several prophets of the era.
 
articulett said:
I thought they had a thing against trimming beards... or did Jesus get a pass on that one...

Maybe the DNA in his magic Y chromosome made his bear grow in a naturally groomed manner?
Click to expand...

If Jesus played poker, he would trim it. A good goatee is much more intimidating than a full beard.
 
MG1962 said:
Okay well a good example of what I mean are the Trojan wars - It is geneally agreed the Homeric epics began as an oral tradition of perhaps as much as four hundred years.

Now of course there is very good chance that emblishment occured and the story's point changed somewhat. However what didn't change was the core fact. Greece and Troy fought a war - Greece eventually won. Until the discovery of Troy, the whole story was always considered a myth.

I use the same arguement with Jesus, Buddha even Moses. The existence of the stories in the first place point to a high probability these people existed. Their deeds, actions and fate can be argued, because they are all elements that can be emblished or changed to suit the mood of the re-teller.

Where these people big bold and as imposing as the tradition might suggest. I think that is the subject of another thread altogether
Click to expand...

And now fragments are coming out saying that Greece LOST the Trojan war.

Oral tradition is the most unreliable form of history you can have. Unfortunately, it's also, until recently, the most common, say the last 500 years or so.

you have to understand that Siddarta was a Indian prince. His life is documented elsewhere. That he existed is not in question. That he sat under a banyan tree and ate only lentils until he achieved enlightenment is under scrutiny. Moses is another story. IIRC, there's a good argument to be made that he's fictional, starting with there not actually being a record of a time when the Hebrews were enslaved, enmasse, by the Egyptians, but I digress, shamelessly.

Jesus is a different story altogether. ID does bring up some good points. There isn't a whole lot written about him, especially in the formative period after his death. There's almost nothing about his childhood (except for the one gospel, Gospel of Mary, I think?) is written about, none that is written is accepted as, um...gospel.

This being said, there isn't a really good argument to suppose that he didn't live. First, the time period that he was to have lived in is as well known as any of the same time frame. Second, the predominant culture that he was subject to was known to have been in the area. Third, some of those who came after him are accepted as having had lived (e.g. Paul). Fourth, his place in society would naturally exempt him from the normal documentary processes of his day. And so on. It all adds up to him being a difficult person to actually pin down. I understand those that say he didn't live, I used to be one, ask JJ. When I first got here, he and I locked horns over this very topic.

In the long run, it probably doesn't matter except to the most fundamental wings of both the Christians and atheist camps. The rest of us can accept the myth for what it is. Much like I accept the Poetic Eddas and Greco-Roman mythology for what they are, nice stories that our ancient forefathers used to try to help explain the world about them, give guidance as to how to get along. Were they perfect? Hell, no. The NT is rife with racism, misogyny, bigotry and general nastiness. There's some good bits too, though. It's an important set of books, even if it's not a good book. Western civilization is based heavily on the Bible, in general, and the New Testament in particular. No argument about Jesus having had lived or not will change that.

That's not to say that it should STAY that influential, just that it was that influential.
 
tsg said:
I didn't say that oral histories are necessarily inaccurate, only that they aren't necessarily reliable on their own. Even in your example, there was eventually physical evidence to confirm them.



If, though, you add in the possibility that the people who eventually recorded these oral histories may have had an agenda that was served by embellishing the facts, the oral histories they represent become that much more unlikely to be accurate.



And I think that is precisely where the whole "did Jesus exist" argument falls. How much of it has to be false before the person in question ceases to qualify as "Jesus" in any manner that is significant to the Jesus of the New Testament? And that's assuming it even is a single person and not a composite of several prophets of the era.
Click to expand...

But the point with Troy, people said it was a story. Then the ruins where found. I am not aware we are debating the significance of Jesus, but the mere fact he existed.

Sure Jesus could have gotten the DC comic superhero work over, but it has to be inherently wrong to discount that the Gospels might actually be fairly accurate, simply because we dont believe they are
 
MG1962 said:
But the point with Troy, people said it was a story. Then the ruins where found. I am not aware we are debating the significance of Jesus, but the mere fact he existed.

Sure Jesus could have gotten the DC comic superhero work over, but it has to be inherently wrong to discount that the Gospels might actually be fairly accurate, simply because we dont believe they are
Click to expand...
Never actually studied textual criticism, have you? The Bible is rife with internal inaccuracies, let alone difficult to correlate stories with the real world. The Bible is in no way an accurate primary source, it's a work of hagiography written by an unelected committee over a 1500 year time frame. Parts have found corroboration but most has not.
 
kmortis said:
And now fragments are coming out saying that Greece LOST the Trojan war.

This being said, there isn't a really good argument to suppose that he didn't live. First, the time period that he was to have lived in is as well known as any of the same time frame. Second, the predominant culture that he was subject to was known to have been in the area. Third, some of those who came after him are accepted as having had lived (e.g. Paul). Fourth, his place in society would naturally exempt him from the normal documentary processes of his day. And so on. It all adds up to him being a difficult person to actually pin down. I understand those that say he didn't live, I used to be one, ask JJ. When I first got here, he and I locked horns over this very topic.
Click to expand...

Are you aware of any links on the net about this new developement with the Trojan wars? I suspect it would be an interesting read

On the topic of Jesus, my point boils down to a balance of probabilty, that he existed in some form or other. Sure it might turn out that he was the creation of some fasting starved imagination, but there would need to be some pretty solid evidence to sway me
 
MG1962 said:
Are you aware of any links on the net about this new developement with the Trojan wars? I suspect it would be an interesting read

On the topic of Jesus, my point boils down to a balance of probabilty, that he existed in some form or other. Sure it might turn out that he was the creation of some fasting starved imagination, but there would need to be some pretty solid evidence to sway me
Click to expand...

The problem with imaginary people is they don't leave evidence... You can't tell the imaginary people who leave no evidence from the real people who leave no evidence...

Was Johnny Appleseed based on a real person?
 
MG1962 said:
But the point with Troy, people said it was a story. Then the ruins where found.
Click to expand...

My point is that until the ruins were found, there was good reason to believe it was a story.

I am not aware we are debating the significance of Jesus, but the mere fact he existed.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I'm trying to get at, though. What do you mean by "existed"? Even if we ignore the supernatural claims of the New Testament and focus on the more mundane stories of his life, how many of them have to be wrong before we're not talking about the same guy anymore?

For example, the movie "Wild Wild West" featured a character named Ulysses S. Grant who was President of the United States. There was also an actual President of the United States named Ulysses S. Grant. None of the events portrayed in the movie actually happened to the real person and many of the facts presented in the movie about him were inaccurate. Is the Ulysses S. Grant in the movie the same person as the historical President? If they are, to me it makes the distinction between "real person" and "fictional character" insignificant. The character was, no doubt, inspired by the real person, but to say the Ulysses S. Grant of the movie "existed" while Captain James West did not is meaningless. The real person had little to nothing to do with the character in the movie. I mean, I really don't see much of a distinction between arguing whether the stories are wrong because they didn't happen to the real person or because the person they supposedly happened to isn't real.

In the end, I'm with kmortis on this one. Whether or not Jesus Christ was a real historical figure, even if all the mundane aspects of his life in the New Testament are 100% accurate, even if he inspired the religion we now know as Christianity, makes no difference whatsoever about the validity of the belief system. L. Ron Hubbard was certainly a real person and that doesn't make Scientology any more valid.

Sure Jesus could have gotten the DC comic superhero work over, but it has to be inherently wrong to discount that the Gospels might actually be fairly accurate, simply because we dont believe they are
Click to expand...

I would argue that it isn't a mere belief that they are inaccurate, but doubt of their accuracy for a number of reasons which have been presented here by others.
 
DOC said:
Originally Posted by DOC
Here is a site by Josh McDowell entitled "Evidence for the Resurrection":

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/...les/josh2.html




How about most of Europe, North America, and South America, just had national holidays celebrating the birth of a Jew who died at age 33, 2000 years ago. How's that for evidence.
Click to expand...

Certainly you realize the only reason that North America and South America celebrate Jesus' birth is because those good christians slaughtered all the native people and stole their land. Hmmm, to christians, all that land and resources, I suppose it would be a good reason to celebrate jesus. Enjoy:rolleyes:

glenn
 
Hindmost said:
Certainly you realize the only reason that North America and South America celebrate Jesus' birth is because those good christians slaughtered all the native people and stole their land. Hmmm, to christians, all that land and resources, I suppose it would be a good reason to celebrate jesus. Enjoy:rolleyes:

glenn
Click to expand...

Actually, according to DOC, the Europeans brought peace to the Americas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom